kaiser wrote:Joe Quincy wrote:Contracts Set 5, question 27 (general partner commits suicide because of gambling debts and limited partner things he's liable for p-ship debts):
The explanation in the book doesn't seem right. How is their a bargained for exchange when the limited partner had no legal detriment or benefit. He was mistaken about the fact that he was liable so he thought he had a detriment but he didn't. Is that enough?
The explanation only addresses why the unsecured creditor's not filing suit was consideration but never considers the other side of the transaction.
The limited parter got the creditor to hold off on filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition. So he absolutely got a benefit out of the exchange. Sure, it might not seem like a big deal, but we don't care about the adequacy of consideration. And the creditor got a promise from the limited partner that the debt would be paid off. Seems like a bargain-for exchange to me. And once you have that, the answer has to be D.